Marquette prez offers Prof. McAdams job back – if he apologizes

[Marquette prez offers Prof. McAdams job back – if he apologizes; otherwise, he’s suspended without pay through fall 2017 semester and then …]

WON’T BACK DOWN: Marquette political science professor John McAdams says ‘Academic freedom means nothing at Marquette’ and that he will not apologize for exercising his right to academic freedom. The university announced it will suspend the professor for his controversial blog comments in late 2014, and compel him to apologize.

MILWAUKEE, Wis. – Marquette University administrators are doubling down on their assault on academic freedom, and it could ultimately cost the Jesuit institution of higher education.

On Thursday, Marquette University President Michael Lovell announced in a letter to Marquette community members that long-time political science professor John McAdams is suspended until January 2017 – without pay but with benefits.

The tenured professor who has been in professional limbo for 16 months since writing a controversial blog post also faces a greater indignity. He is to apologize for doing what college educators across the country are allowed to do: publicly expressing thoughts.

If McAdams doesn’t admit his “guilt” within the next two weeks, he will not be reinstated.

He remains defiant, saying he will not apologize.

“Marquette’s administration appears to believe that they can simply ignore the guarantee of academic freedom contained in faculty contracts, and get rid of a professor who has created problems for them by blowing the whistle on various kinds of misconduct at the institution,” McAdams told Wisconsin Watchdog.

“I didn’t violate any rule that they have. They have just concocted a claim based on vague rhetoric about Marquette’s values. In the face of such actions, academic freedom means nothing at Marquette,” the professor added.

McAdams has previously said that he would sue the university if it went ahead with its original plans to sever his tenure.

The discipline review process has dragged on since McAdams was told in January 2015 that the university was pursuing removal of his tenure for comments he made on his blog about a graduate student teacher. She reportedly would not allow opinions against same-sex marriage in her class.

The outspoken McAdams who has been highly critical of many of Marquette’s policies over the years has been suspended since December 2014, weeks after he posted his comments on his Marquette Warrior blog.

In his letter to the Marquette community, Lovell noted that he is following the faculty committee’s recommendation, issued in January, but will not disclose what that recommendation is.

“Today, I want you to know that after significant personal deliberation, I have decided to formally implement the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation. While I cannot provide specific details of the recommendation because it relates to a personnel matter, I can assure you that my decision has been guided by Marquette University’s values and is solely based on Professor McAdams’ actions, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog,” he wrote.

Marquette has long argued that McAdams violated the university’s value system.

McAdams and his attorney, Rick Esenberg of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, or WILL, assert that the steps taken Thursday by the university are “inimical to academic freedom.”

In fact, the Milwaukee-based WILL in a statement said the requirement McAdams apologize (or as the law firm put it, subject himself to “self-abasement and compelled speech”) was not recommended by the Faculty Hearing Committee.

“The committee found that Marquette had improperly suspended Dr. McAdams in violation of his due process rights under the Faculty Statutes and disagreed with the University’s desire to terminate him,” the institute stated.

In its 123-page report the “diverse” Faculty Hearing Committee, however, “gave lip service to academic freedom but made it subject to a multi-factor after-the-fact balancing test that would leave members of the university with no real guidance or protection other than the sufferance of their colleagues,” WILL said in the statement.

In other words, Marquette faculty retain freedom of speech “only as far as their colleagues are willing to tolerate it.”

McAdams, a nationally respected political science professor at Marquette for nearly 40 years, has been a thorn in the university’s side for a long time. He has been highly critical of administrators, particularly the Jesuit school’s myriad policies and initiatives steeped in political correctness.

The McAdams affair has been a public-relations nightmare for Marquette.

Last month, Marquette, again, made the list of “10 Worst Colleges for free speech” by the Foundation for Individual Rights for Education. The designation had everything to do with Marquette’s handling of McAdams.

Post navigation

One comment on “Marquette prez offers Prof. McAdams job back – if he apologizes”

[“Sodomy uber alles!” It also trumps the free speech of foreign pugilists who may not know of (or appreciate) the Anglo-Saxon legal principle that “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins”]

World-famous boxer Manny Pacquiao has been banned from a trendy L.A. mall because of his biblical comments on same-sex “marriage.” But at least one legal expert says it’s hypocritical to force Christian bakers to make cakes for homosexuals and then ban Christians from public places because their opinion is unpopular.

“Manny Pacquiao is no longer welcome,” Grove owner Rick Caruso told TMZ. “These are statements of hatred. A lot of people from the gay community come to the Grove and they have a right not to feel uncomfortable.”

Pacquiao, a world champion in eight weight classes and a two-term member of the Philippines Congress who is seeking a Senate seat in the May elections, was approached a month ago for his views on same-sex “marriage” by a Filipino TV reporter while he was training for his April 9 non-title match against American welterweight Tim Bradley in Las Vegas.

“It’s common sense,” the boxer responded. “Will you see any animals where male is to male and female is to female? The animals are better. They know how to distinguish male from female. If we approve male on male, female on female, then man is worse than animals.”

Pacquiao soon apologized for offending LGBT individuals but held his ground on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” “I still stand on my belief that I’m against same-sex marriage because of what the Bible says, but I’m not condemning LGBT. I love you all with the love of the Lord,” he said in a video.

But he then followed up on his Facebook page by citing the passage in Leviticus that states, “If a man has sexual relations with a man … [he is] to be put to death.”
Nike, the sporting goods giant, withdrew its sponsorship of Pacquiao, and celebrities in the Philippines and the U.S. attacked him, including the fight’s promoter, Bob Arum.

The furore died down until Pacquiao moved his camp to Los Angeles. This time, promoter Arum stood by him, declaring that Pacquiao is “entitled to say he was against same-sex marriages. That is his religious belief and, while people may disagree with it, he is entitled to say it.”

Caruso, a developer and philanthropist who was raised Catholic and recently donated $7.5 million to build a new Catholic church on the campus of the University of South California, apparently disagrees. After Pacquiao took a break from training and took in a movie at the Grove along with his sizeable entourage, Caruso issued his disinvitation.

“Two areas of law are colliding here,” John Mauck of the firm Mauck & Baker told LifeSiteNews. The traditional right of a property owner to choose with whom he does business is being eroded by the right of the minorities to use public facilities along with the majority.

“This area of law was developed to ensure African-Americans could not be discriminated against by restaurants and hotels,” said Mauck. “If you are open to the public, you have got to be open to all […] There’s really a bit of hypocrisy here. If Christians can’t refuse to serve gays, then he shouldn’t be able to refuse to serve Christians.”